California's New Driverless Car Rules (AB 1777): What They Mean After a Crash

Driverless cars are no longer a novelty in parts of California. If you live or work in a city where robotaxis operate, you may have shared a lane, a crosswalk, or an intersection with one this week. Most trips end uneventfully. But when a vehicle with no one in the driver’s seat is involved in a crash, people reasonably ask: who do I deal with, who gets the ticket, and who pays?

On July 1, 2026, a set of rules from Assembly Bill 1777 took effect, along with related Department of Motor Vehicles regulations. You may have seen headlines saying police can now “ticket” robotaxis. That is partly true, but the details matter, and the new law is narrower than some coverage suggests.

This post walks through what AB 1777 actually does, what it does not do for someone who has been hurt, and the practical steps that protect a claim involving an autonomous vehicle.

What AB 1777 Is

AB 1777, authored by Assemblymember Ting, was signed on September 27, 2024 (Chapter 682, Statutes of 2024). It amended California’s existing autonomous vehicle statute, Vehicle Code section 38750, and added new sections 38751 through 38753.

The law focuses on two problems that had drawn public attention: driverless vehicles getting in the way of police, firefighters, and paramedics, and the fact that traffic tickets are written to drivers, which a driverless car does not have.

What Changed on July 1, 2026

Notices of autonomous vehicle noncompliance

Under new Vehicle Code section 38752, a peace officer who observes an autonomous vehicle commit an alleged violation of the Vehicle Code, or of a local traffic ordinance adopted under it, while the autonomous technology is engaged may issue a “notice of autonomous vehicle noncompliance.” The notice identifies the alleged violation, the date, time, and location, and the vehicle’s license plate.

The statute only became operative once the DMV adopted regulations, which it announced on April 28, 2026. Those regulations provide that, starting July 1, 2026:

• An officer may leave the notice in the vehicle where registration and insurance documents are kept, give it to a company representative at the scene, or send it to the company and the DMV within 72 hours if there was no traffic stop.
• The manufacturer must submit the notice to the DMV within 72 hours of receiving it.
• If the officer marks the notice for priority review because the vehicle’s driving presented a clear or potential danger or risk of injury to others, the manufacturer must submit it within 24 hours.

According to the DMV, failing to submit a notice on time may lead to restriction, suspension, or revocation of the company’s permit.

One limit is written directly into the law: issuing a notice “shall not create a presumption that the autonomous vehicle is unsafe,” and it does not limit the manufacturer’s ability to contest the alleged violation. A notice is not a finding of fault.

A dedicated emergency line and two-way communication

New Vehicle Code section 38751 applies to manufacturers whose vehicles operate without a human physically present. These companies must:

• Keep a dedicated emergency response phone line open whenever their vehicles are on public roads, free to public agencies, with calls answered within 30 seconds by a remote human operator who can see the status of the fleet.
• Equip each vehicle with a two-way voice device so emergency officials near the vehicle can reach a remote operator within 30 seconds.
• Give remote operators the ability to immobilize a vehicle, let an official move it, or move it as directed.
• Give law enforcement and firefighters access to any in-vehicle override system, with training.

Some of these requirements do not apply to commercial vehicles of 10,001 pounds or more.

Emergency geofencing

Emergency officials, including dispatchers, peace officers, and first responders, can now send a manufacturer an “emergency geofencing message” identifying an area to leave or avoid. Within two minutes, the manufacturer must direct its fleet to leave or avoid that area. The DMV says vehicles that violate these restrictions may face permit restrictions or suspension.

Related DMV changes

The same April 2026 regulations expanded oversight more broadly. Among other things, the DMV says they expand collision reporting, add data reporting on system failures and hard braking, allow the DMV to impose operating restrictions, and open California to permits for heavy-duty autonomous trucks.

What AB 1777 Does Not Change for an Injured Person

This is the part most headlines skip. AB 1777 is a regulatory and enforcement law. Nothing in its text creates a new right to sue, sets damages, or declares that manufacturers are automatically liable for crashes. A notice of noncompliance is a report to a state agency, not a civil judgment, and not a fine paid to you.

If you are hurt by an autonomous vehicle, the paths to compensation are generally the same ones California has long recognized:

• Negligence. Under Civil Code section 1714, everyone is responsible for injuries caused by a lack of ordinary care. A company that operates a fleet owes that care in how its vehicles are tested, deployed, monitored, and maintained, and in how remote staff respond.
• Product liability. California law allows claims against manufacturers when a defect in a product’s design, manufacture, or warnings causes injury. Autonomous driving software and hardware can be part of that analysis.
• Other at-fault parties. Another human driver, a contractor, or a public entity may share responsibility, and each one’s insurance may matter.

One newer law matters here. AB 316 (2025), now Civil Code section 1714.46, took effect January 1, 2026. It says that when a defendant developed, modified, or used artificial intelligence alleged to have caused harm, the defendant may not argue that the AI “autonomously caused the harm.” The defendant can still raise other defenses, including causation, foreseeability, and the comparative fault of others. So the “the computer did it” argument is off the table, but you still have to prove what went wrong and that it caused your injuries. We covered the broader topic in our post on AI liability in personal injury.

The deadlines also have not changed. The general deadline to file a personal injury lawsuit in California is two years from the injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, and a claim against a public entity generally must be presented within six months (Government Code section 911.2).

Evidence in a Driverless Car Crash

Autonomous vehicle cases often turn on data, and California law already requires a lot of it to exist.

• Sensor data. Vehicle Code section 38750 requires manufacturers seeking approval to operate driverless or deployed vehicles to certify that the vehicle has a separate, read-only mechanism that captures autonomous technology sensor data for at least 30 seconds before a collision. That data must be preserved for three years after the collision.
• Collision reports to the DMV. Under the April 2026 regulations, autonomous vehicle manufacturers must report California crashes to the DMV following the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crash reporting order’s timeframes, and the DMV can request supplemental sensor data and camera footage.
• Noncompliance notices. If an officer issued one, it may help show what the officer saw, although the law says it creates no presumption that the vehicle is unsafe.
• Insurance. Manufacturers operating autonomous vehicles must certify they maintain insurance, a surety bond, or self-insurance of $5 million.

Three years of sensor data preservation does not mean every useful record will survive. Video, remote operator logs, and communications may be handled differently, which is why early written preservation requests matter.

What to Do If a Driverless Car Hits You

The basics from our checklist for the first 24 hours after a crash still apply: get medical care, call 911 if anyone is hurt, and take photos. A few steps are specific to autonomous vehicles:

1. Photograph the vehicle’s identifiers. Capture the license plate, the company name, and any fleet number on the body.
2. Ask the officer for the report number and whether a notice of noncompliance was issued.
3. Note what happened with the remote operator. If someone spoke through the vehicle’s communication device, write down when and what was said.
4. If you were a passenger, screenshot your trip details and receipt in the app before anything changes.
5. File your own DMV report if required. California drivers involved in a crash causing injury, death, or more than $1,000 in property damage must report it to the DMV within 10 days (form SR-1) under Vehicle Code section 16000.
6. Be careful with company or insurer calls. Stick to facts, and don’t give a recorded statement before you understand your rights.

How We Approach These Cases

Claims against technology companies tend to involve technical evidence, corporate defendants, and expert analysis. We start by identifying every potentially responsible party, sending preservation demands for sensor data, video, and remote operations records, and reviewing what the company reported to regulators. You can learn more about our car accident practice.

If you were hurt in a crash involving a driverless vehicle in California, contact Reardon Stodolka for a free consultation at 657.522.7122. We will explain your options, and you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.